lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf

8/10/2019 lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf

1/48

Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund

Semi-Annual Report 2011(1 January to 30 June 2011)

A multi-donor trust fund supported by Australia, Denmark,

the European Union, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden,

Switzerland and the United Kingdom


2/48


Fund Manager Office

3rdFloor, Inya Lake Hotel

37 Kaba Aye Pagoda Road, Mayangone Township, Yangon, Myanmar

Phone: +95 1 65 77 04, Fax: +95 1 65 77 02Email: [email protected]

Website: http://www.lift-fund.net

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Australia, Denmark, the European Union, the Netherlands,

New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for their kind contribu-

tions to improving the livelihoods and food security of the poorest and most vulner-

able people in Myanmar. Their support to the Livelihoods and Food Security Trust

Fund (LIFT) is gratefully acknowledged.

Disclaimer

This document has been produced with financial assistance from Australia,

Denmark, the European Union, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland

and the United Kingdom. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to re-

flect the official opinion of the European Union or the governments of Australia, Den-

mark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.



3/48

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Context 1

1.2 Background on LIFT 3

2 PROGRAMMATIC ACHIEVEMENTS 5

Purpose: To increase food availability and incomes of 1.5 milliontarget beneficiaries 5

2.1 Output 1: Direct agricultural production support provided and

used by target individuals 7

2.2 Output 2: Effective market and employment support mechanisms

provided and used by target individuals (on farm, off farm and

non-farm) 16

2.3 Output 3: Effective social protection measures that increase the

incomes and enhance the livelihood opportunities of chronically

poor households) 22

2.4 Output 4: Capacity of local organisations strengthened to supportlivelihoods and food security initiatives 25

2.5 Output 5: Monitoring and evaluation evidence and commissioned

studies used to inform programme and policy development 27

2.6 Output 6: Funds are allocated in line with Fund Board policies and

are accounted for in a transparent manner 29

2.7 Output 7: Fund flow and partner performance are monitored and

evaluated 31

2.8 Cross-cutting issues 32

3 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 35

3.1 Refinements to the M&E system 35

3.2 Significant issues 35


4/48

ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency

CACC Chin Association for Christian Communication

CARD Chin Association for Rural Development

CBO Community-Based Organization

CDA Community Development Association

CDN Consortium of Dutch NGOs

CESVI Cooperazione e Sviluppo (Italian NGO for cooperation and

development)

CLN Community Livelihood Network

CRDP Chin Relief and Development ProgrammeDC Donor Consortium

DPDO Disable People Development Organisation

EC European Commission

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FB Fund Board (LIFT)

FEG Farmer Extension Groups

FFS Farmer Field Schools

FM Fund Manager (LIFT)

FY Fiscal Year/Financial Year

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GOUM Government of the Union of Myanmar

HYV High Yield Variety seeds

IOM International Organ ization for Migration

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IRRI International Rice Research Institute

KMSS Karuna Myanmar Social Services

LEAD Linking Emergency Aid and Development

LIFT Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund

LoA Letter of Agreement

LSG livelihood support groups

LWF The Lutheran World Federation

Abbreviations and Acronyms

i


5/48

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MAS Myanmar Agriculture Services

MBCA Myanmar Business Coalition on AIDS

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund

MERN Mangrove and Environmental Rehabilitation Network

MK Myanmar Kyat (local currency)

MoAI Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

MoSW Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement

MOU Memorandum of UnderstandingMSE micro and small enterprise groups

MT Metric Tonne

NAG Network Activities Group

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NMTPF National Medium Term Priority Framework

PONREPP Post Nargis Recovery and Preparedness Plan

RPA Rice self-provisioning ability

RSB Rice Seed Banks

SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition

SHGs Self-Help groups

SIM Social Impact Monitoring

SRI System of Rice Intensification

TCG Tripartite Core Group

TGH Triangle Generation Humanitaire

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and

the Pacific

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

VDC Village Development Committee

WCM World Concern Myanmar

WFP World Food Programme

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ii


6/48

http://www.lift-fund.net

iii


7/48

Executive Summary

In 2011, LIFT was active in the Ayeyarwady Delta, the central Dry Zone as well as Shan,

Chin, Kachin and Rakhine States. During the first half of 2011 LIFT provided assis-

tance to over 1,300 villages, reaching an estimated 18,000 new households or 90,000

people as new direct beneficiaries. Cumulatively, including activities in 2010, LIFT hasprovided assistance to an estimated 172,000 households or 860,000 people as direct

beneficiaries1.

Important cumulative achievements in the Delta include:

Output 1: Agricultural production support:43,542 farmers have been provided with 2,264 MT of paddy seed 1,247 MT of fertil-izer

Training and advice has been given 16,195 to farmers to maximise the benefit ofagricultural inputs

Output 2: Market and employment support:Capital has been provided to 9,579 households for small businessesLivestock has been distributed to 10,846 poor and landless households11,395 fishing households were provided with nets and/or boats

Output 3: Social protection mechanisms:Cash-for-work activities has targeted poor and vulnerable households, creating391,209 person-days of work and constructing or repairing important village infra-

structure including ponds, embankments, jetties, footpaths, bridges and culverts

Output 4: Strengthening the capacity of local organisations:Over 3,449 community-based groups with more than 70,447 members (41% ofwhich were women) have been trained in management, livelihood and vocational

skills

Half of all LIFT funding commitments to date has been for the Ayeyarwady Delta. The 22

LIFT-funded projects in the Delta, which started in early 2010, continued to help people

recover from the destruction of the 2008 Cyclone Nargis. The first round of projects fo-

cused largely on replacing agricultural assets lost to Cyclone Nargis and consequently

nearly half of the project budgets were allocated to kick-starting agricultural produc-

tion, disrupted by the cyclone.

LIFT also began a second round of longer-term projects in the Delta to address underly-

ing problems of food insecurity and poverty. The second round of projects has a greater

focus on the provision of rural credit and more activities that add value to agricultural

and fish products with the aim of creating rural employment opportunities. The Delta

activities are made up of 22 one-year projects (total value of $19.5m) that started in early

2010 and 9 three-year projects (total value of $18m) that have only just begun.

LIFT also expanded significantly its activities in areas of the country outside the Delta,

awarding 11 new grants outside the Delta with a total value of US$ 25 million. In total,

there are now 17 LIFT-funded projects operating outside the Delta with a total budget

of US$ 37 million.

All national and international NGO partners of LIFT (19 in total) were audited in May/

1168,00 households (840,000 people) in the Delta and 4,000 (20,000 people) outside the Delta.

iv


8/48

National and international NGO partners of LIFT in the delta (19 in total) were audited in

May/June 2011. Overall results confirmed that LIFT partners have good financial control

mechanisms in place and are generally following them consistently.

LIFT achieved an important milestone in February 2011 when UNOPS (as the Fund Man-

ager) signed a country-wide agreement for LIFT with the Ministry of Agriculture and

Irrigation (MoAI). The agreement has facilitated getting visas and travel permits for in-

ternational staff. The agreement has since been transferred to the Ministry of National

Planning and Economic Development.

The appreciation of the Myanmar Kyat was an implementation challenge for LIFT part-

ners in 2011.Most of the projects LIFT funded were prepared in November/December

2009 when the exchange rate was more than Kyats 1,000 per $US. The exchange rate

in the first six months of 2011 averaged Kyats 840 per $US. Some partners have had to

marginally reduce planned activities. However most of the projects managed to reach

or slightly exceed planned targets and, as detailed in Table 1, in aggregate LIFT-funded

projects to date have exceeded nearly all planned outputs.

v


9/48

Table 1: Summary of achievements versus targets for LIFT-funded projects in the Delta

vi


10/48

http://www.lift-fund.net


11/48

1. INTRODUCTION

This report describes activities funded by the Livelihoods and Food Security Trust

Fund during the first six months of 2011 (1 January to 30 June).

1.1 Context

While Myanmar is still one of the poorest countries in South-East Asia (ranked 132

out of 169 countries in the 2010 Human Development Index), and lags behind its

neighbours in most socio-economic indicators, the country is undergoing an im-

portant transition, which may lead to important improvements in food security and

livelihoods in the coming years.

The new government (President Thein Sein was inaugurated in March 2011) has laid

out an ambitious set of reforms that could, if implemented promptly and effectively,

initiate important macro and micro economic changes in the country.

The President has named three well-respected economists as presidential advisors

who helped organise a national workshop on rural development and poverty allevia-

tion, itself a departure from the past when discussions of poverty were absent. The

new focus areas are: a) agriculture; b) livestock and fisheries; c) rural productivity and

cottage industry; d) micro savings and credit enterprises; e) rural cooperatives; f) rural

socio economy; g) rural renewable energy; and, h) environmental conservation.

LIFT is active in all of these eight areas and as a step towards establishing relation-

ships with key ministries leading on aspects of the Rural Development and Poverty

Alleviation Programme, LIFT had meetings during the reporting period with the

Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, the Ministry of National Planning and Eco-

nomic Development and the Ministry of Cooperatives.

Agriculture remains the mainstay of the economy with almost 50% of GDP being

derived from agriculture, livestock, fisheries and forestry. Sixty-three percent of

the labour force is engaged in the agriculture sector. Rice is the staple crop and a

significant export commodity. Other important crops are sugar cane, groundnuts,

sesame, wheat, maize, millet, jute, cotton, beans, pulses and oilseeds, vegetables,

rubber, toddy palm, tobacco and spices. Yields of most crops are low compared to

neighbouring countries.

According to recent 2011 country-wide survey2: 26% of Myanmars population lives

below the poverty line (the proportion is much higher in Chin (73%), Rakhine (44%),Taninthary (33%), Shan (33%) and Ayeyarwady (32%)); the nationwide prevalence of

moderately underweight children is 32%; the proportion of total household budgets

expended on food is 68%; and, landlessness is a significant phenomenon at 24% of

those whose primary economic activity is agriculture. The same survey shows that the

Delta, Mandalay, Rakhine and Shan account for two-thirds of the countrys total food

poverty and half of total poverty. These areas also account for the significant majority

of LIFTs activity and expenditure.

2 Integrated Household Living Conditions Assessment II, United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) 2011.

1


12/48

Figure 1: Map of LIFT project areas

2


13/48

1.2 Background on LIFT

Discussions began in 2008 amongst a group of donors on ways to help Myanmar

make faster progress towards the achievement of Millennium Development Goal 1

(the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger). After extensive consultations with

key stakeholders from government, embassies, UN and NGOs, in March 2009 LIFTthe Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund - was launched.

In the spirit of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the OECD/DAC guide-

lines on Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery, the donors agreed

on a multi-donor trust fund approach with the conviction that pooling resources

allows for programme coherence and leads to greater impact.

Generous contributions for LIFTs work in 2010 came from Australia, the European

Union (EU), the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. More

recent contributions have been received from Denmark and New Zealand.

The donors contracted the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) as

the fund manager to administer the fundsand provide monitoring and oversight

for LIFT.

The overall objective of LIFT is to make progress towards the achievement of Mil-

lennium Development Goal 1 in Myanmar. 3LIFTs purpose is to increase food avail-

ability and incomes of 1-1.5 million target beneficiaries.

This is to be achieved through delivering the following programme outputs:

1. Direct agricultural production support provided and used by target individuals

2. Effective market and employment support mechanisms provided and used by

target individuals (on farm, off farm and non-farm)3. Effective social protection measures provided for the chronically poor of the

target households

4. Capacity of local partners strengthened to support livelihoods and food security

initiatives

5. Monitoring and evaluation evidence and commissioned studies used to inform

programme and policy development

And the following management outputs:

6. Funds are allocated in line with Fund Board policies and are accounted for in a

transparent manner

7. Fund flow and partner performance are monitored and evaluated

3MDG 1: Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day; achieve full andproductive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people; reduce by halfthe proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

3


14/48

4


15/48

2 PROGRAMMATIC ACHIEVEMENTS

In 2010, the majority of LIFT field activities were focused on helping people recover

from the destruction of Cyclone Nargis, which swept through the Ayeyarwady Delta

in May 2008. While these activities continued through the first six months of 2011,

LIFT also began the process of narrowing the geographic focus of its activities in theDelta and shifting from Nargis recovery to addressing the underlying problems of

food insecurity and poverty in the Delta. LIFT also expanded significantly its activi-

ties in other parts of the country. LIFT now has activities in the central Dry Zone as

well as Shan, Chin, Kachin, and Rakhine States.

The sections that follow describe LIFTs partnersprogress to date against its stated

purpose and against its planned outputs. Each of these sections has two parts, one

describing progress in Delta and a second describing progress in other areas of

the country, referred to in the text as Outside-Delta activities. This has been done

mainly because the Delta activities were started significantly earlier than in the oth-

er parts of the country, and have therefore made more progress.

The Delta activities are made up of 22 one-year projects (total value of $19.5 m) that

started in early 2010 and seven(out of 9 to be contracted) three-year projects (total

value of $18 m) that have only just begun.

The Outside-Delta activities are made up of 17 three-year projects (total value of

$37 m) that started in the first half of 2011.

Purpose: To increase food availability and incomes of 1.5 million target

beneficiaries

Including support provided in 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011, LIFTs partnershave provided assistance to 172,000 households or 860,000 people as direct ben-

eficiaries4.

In summary the work in the Delta resulted in:

1. An increase in area cultivated with better land preparation due to improved till-

age capacity (20 60%)5for monsoon rice planted in May 2010.

2. Yields increase with better access to farming inputs (40-60%)5in 2010 monsoon

paddy

3. Increased income by reduced input costs and debt

4. Adoption of new/improved farming techniques through farmer field schools,demonstration plots and on-farm trials (e.g., intensified rice production using

nursery management, transplanting, use of drum seeders, pest management

and use of fertiliser)

5. A better supply of pure seeds through seed multiplication (94.5 MT of seeds

produced in Welthungerhilfe project areas)

6. Improved post harvest facilities provided with 93 threshers, 135 silos and

10,000 air tight bags to more than 3,000 farmers and 135 seed growers

7. Sustainability of farming inputs through seed banks, buffalo banks and revolv-

ing funds established by power tiller and thresher user groups of farmers (e.g.,

78 seed banks and 205 buffalo banks)

4168,00 households (840,000 people) in the Delta and 4,000 (20,000 people) outside the Delta.5Based on reports received from only 8 partners as of June 2011

5


16/48


17/48

LIFT activities in the Delta

The first round of LIFT projects in the Delta (Delta 1) was largely completed in the six

months to June 30, 2011 with only two of the 22 implementing partner projects still

running. As of June 30, LIFT had provided assistance to 1,300 villages in the Delta reach-

ing over 168,000 households and more than 840,000 people as direct beneficiaries.

After the main monsoon rice harvest in late 2010 and early 2011, the majority of

project activities in the delta continued in support of livelihoods for the poor and

vulnerable, many of whom are landless. Credit was provided for livestock rearing,

fish production and non-agricultural small businesses. Community-based groups

received group management and technical training to strengthen village capacity

to sustain project activities and benefits.

2.1 Output 1: Direct agricultural production support provided and used

by target individuals


In 2010, most LIFT-funded projects (16 of 22) in the delta focused on delivering in-

puts for agriculture, which accounted for 37% of total programme expenditure. The

Delta projects were delivered generally in time to support the monsoon paddy cul-

tivation (May 2010).

43,454 farmers were provided with agricultural inputs including 1,373 MT ofpaddy seed to 9,001 farmers in 494 villages, for about 45,000 acres of paddy

1,236 MT of inorganic fertilizer to 11,630 farmers in 585 villages, for about 23,260acres6 of paddy (i.e. 100 kg/farmer, which covered 2 acres on average)

384 MT of organic fertilizers was distributed to 2,371 farmers in 154 villages for7,113 acres7of paddy (150 kg/farmer, which covered 3 acres on average)

2,610 buffaloes were given to 1,195 farming households in 146 villages496 power tillers/hand tractors were distributed to more than 350 farmer groupsfor tilling about 24,800 acres8of monsoon paddy.

93 paddy threshers to more than 3,000 farming households in 91 villages thresh-ing for at least 120,000 baskets9of summer paddy

The majority of LIFTs partners provided services through in-kind distribution di-

rectly to beneficiary households. Action Aid, ADRA, Mercy Corps, Oxfam and Welt-

hungerhilfe provided farmers with cash grants or vouchers to enable farmers to

make their own choice of agricultural inputs needed.

Oxfam and Mercy Corps voucher system enabled farmers to purchase preferred

inputs at a fairer price. Using the voucher system, 2,000 farming families in Dedaye

had an easy access to inputs (i.e. fertilizers, seed and diesel) of their own choice

611,630 farmers received an average of 2 bags of chemical fertilizers (1-1.5 bag of Urea, 0.5-1 bag ofT-super and 0.5 bag of Potash), which can be applied for 2 acres of paddy and thus 23,260 acres were

covered.72,371 famers received an average 3 bags of organic fertilizers, which can be applied for 3 acres of

paddy and thus 7,113 acres were covered8Threshing capacity of a thresher is 50 acres and thus with 496 power tillers, 24,800 acres can becovered.9 At least 50 of 93 paddy threshers were used in 2011 summer paddy season and the capacity ofthreshing is 30 acres/thresher. Based on average yield of summer paddy (i.e. 80 baskets/acre), 120,000baskets have been threshed with LIFT-provided threshers.

7


18/48

10All conversions from Kyats are made at Kyats 840 to US$1, the average exchange rate during the

reporting period.

(on the different brands and kinds) from local businesses. Oxfam reported that

due to this activity, farmers were able to reduce their loan size from private money

lenders by more than 50% as they had fewer loans to pay that the previous years.

Most of the outcome results indicate that the monsoon paddy was generally good

and that paddy yields significantly increased partly due to LIFT project interven-

tions and partly due to good weather in 2010.

(i) Increase in cultivated area of land

Due to LIFTs provision of ploughing assistance (buffaloes, power tillers and fuel) in

the Delta, marginal and land-poor farmers were able to increase their tillage capac-

ity, resulting in larger areas being cultivated and contributing to a better harvest of

summer rice 2010 and increased income in the target areas.

In Labutta Township, 3,902 additional acres of monsoon paddy in TGHs project vil-

lages were cultivated due to the provision of buffaloes. TGH reported that 17,300

MT of paddy were harvested with an average yield of 28 baskets per acre.

In the 30 Lutheran World Federation (LWF) supported villages, 364 farming house-

holds had access to power tillers to plough land, almost 20% of all the cultivated

land (i.e. more than 1,083 hectares) for 2010 monsoon resulting in 75% of the land

being cultivated in 2010 up from 60% in 2009.

In the Mercy Corps project area of Labutta Township in the Delta, farmers increased

their ploughing capacity by using buffaloes enabling a 76% increase in the value of

monsoon paddy produced in 2010. Monsoon paddy yields also increased on aver-

age from 21 baskets to 37 baskets per acre, almost reaching pre-Nargis production

levels (40-55 per acre). The average income from monsoon paddy doubled fromUS$900 to US$1,60010.

Farmers from northern parts of Delta, preferred to use power tillers because they of

the short planting interval (3-4 w eeks) between the monsoon paddy and summer

paddy seasons. The ploughing capacity of a power tiller is four times higher than a

buffalo.

Eight partners distributed a total of 496 power tillers/hand tractors to more than

350 farmer groups, resulting in a huge increase in the paddy acreage in 2010. For ex-

ample, Oxfams local partner that provided tractors reported that monsoon paddy

cultivation increased from 206 acres in 2009 to 500 acres in 2010 in their projectvillages. Land preparation for 2011 summer paddy increased by more than 50% (i.e.

from 590 acres in 2010 to 920 acres in 2011).

(ii) Increased yield per acre

Sixteen partners distributed 1,373 MT (65,692 baskets) of seeds to 9,001 farmers in 494 vil-

lages, which was planted on 13,686 hectares (32,846 acres) of land. Relief International re-

ported that the harvest of farmers in their operational areas increased by 37% and paddy

yields by 18%. Furthermore, 10 families leased land and harvested 3,300 baskets of paddy

due to LIFTs support. LWFs farmers were able to increase yields by 60% (25 baskets per

acre in 2009 to 40 baskets per acre in 2010) due to providing inputs and training.

8


19/48

The farmer groups supported by World Vision reported that their monsoon paddy

yields had improved by 20 baskets per acre (40-50 baskets per acre in 2009 to 60-80

baskets per acre in 2010) due to the agricultural inputs, assets and trainings provid-

ed by LIFT. In the farmer field schools implemented villages supported by Mingalar

Myanmar, the improved production technologies resulted in an increased yield in

monsoon paddy of 10 to 15 baskets per acre.

(iii) Increased income of farming households

In CDN project villages, 60% of the farmers reduced their monsoon paddy produc-

tion costs between 2009 and 2010. Furthermore, as demand for labour increased,

landless labourers worked for an additional 26 days on farming activities (an aver-

age of 187 days in 2010) US$36 per household. Solidarities assessment also high-

lighted that 95% of surveyed beneficiary households that received inputs, increased

their rice self-provisioning ability (RPA) by an additional month from the 2009 R PA

monsoon crop.

Relief International reported that project beneficiaries reduced their families debtfinancial burden resulting in a reduction of their monthly expenditures by 21%. Ox-

fam ensured farmers sufficient access to inputs (fertilizer, seeds and diesel using

cash grants and voucher-based market interventions) to cultivate paddy without

falling further into debt. According to Oxfams local partners reports, all targeted

farmers fully cultivated their paddy fields in within the planting time. Additionally,

some farmers did not need to borrow money in 2010 while others were able to sig-

nificantly reduce loan size by 50 to 70%.

In the Welthungerhilfes project villages, the farmers who sowed summer paddy

reported that their harvested summer paddy in 2011 was 3.5 times higher than in

2009, resulting in an average of 90 baskets per acre compared to an average yield ofmonsoon paddy of 25 baskets per acre in 2009. According to gross margin analysis

conducted by WHH/GRET, the benefit in yield per acre using SRI methods was three

times higher than those using traditional methods. For SRI and seeders, average net

profits per acre was US$190 and US$185 respectively, while for farmers following

traditional methods the average net profits per acre was US$90.

TGH and Mingalar Myanmar introduced winter crops to farmers living in the fresh

water zone and provided them with variety of seeds (cow peas, green gram, black

gram, sunflower, sesame). TGH selected winter cropping beneficiaries according to

their existing skills and availability of land (owned or borrowed) of households and

encouraged land owning farmers to lend their land to landless households therebyensuring that 598 landless households could crop. Numbers and percentages on

how these crops contributed to household income are not available.

(iv) Adoption of new/improved farming techniques

All partners provided agricultural inputs together with appropriate agricultural

advice and training, Farmer Field Schools11 (FFS), and Farmer Extension Groups12

(FEG) trained farmers on different rice seed varieties and improved agricultural

techniques.

Oxfam, World Vision and Welthungerhilfe established farmer extension groups withsmallholder farmers and seed growers. World Vision organized 191 farmers from

both smallholder (beneficiary) and richer (non-beneficiary) farmers and provided

9


20/48

them with weekly sessions at seven field education centres in Bogale and Pyapon.

Farmer field school participants experimented with different rice varieties and dif-

ferent planting techniques through the on-farm paddy trials.

The System of Rice Intensification method produces a high purity of seeds result-

ing in a better selling price; however the method is more costly due to labour and

higher investment. SRI has high labour cost as one needs to transplant seeds by

hand increasing labour costs 5-6 times higher than traditional (i.e. broadcasting)

practice. According to calculations based on average market price of grain paddy

and the quality seeds in 2010, the ratio of gross profit for broadcasting practice is

about 1:1.5 and for SRI 2:1.13 Therefore in order to support the adoption of the SRI

method it is important to ensure access to credit.

Welthungerhilfe trained FEGs from 27 villages on monsoon paddy production and

the modified system of rice intensification through eight modules, including, seed

selection, transplanting and water management, weeding, soil management and

fertility, plant nutrients, reproductive state and management, IPM pest, IPM disease,

and post harvest and management. For the summer paddy, FFS sessions were con-ducted every two weeks in each of the 11 villages, in which five training modules

dealing with IPM pest, IPM disease, soil management, plant nutrition and fertilizer

application, and post harvest and management were provided.

Plots using a system of rice intensification practices increased by 13% due to this

new technology being incorporated into cultivation methods. In the Delta, a high-

er seed rate (3-5 baskets per acre) has been traditionally applied for broadcast-

ing practice, consequently plant population is very high and thus the nutrient

consumption of plants from soil is also high. However, with SRI, fewer seeds were

used (i.e. one basket per acre in average) ensuring that crops absorbed greater

nutrients from the soil resulting in higher yields in SRI plots. Welthungerhilfe re-ported that traditional cultivation system yielded 60 baskets (1,260 kg) per acres

while the SRI demonstration plots yielded 92 baskets (1,932 kg) per acre (more

than 50% increase).

For the monsoon paddy, Welthungerhilfe provided certified High Yield Variety

(HYV) seeds for seed multiplication purpose and about 5,500 acres were planted in

its project villages. A total 49.5 MT (i.e. 2372.5 baskets) of paddy was harvested and

nearly 90% of which (i.e. 2135 baskets) were endorsed as certified seeds. All seed

growers succeeded in selling almost all of their certified seeds US$ 7.1 per basket

while the grain price was US$ 4.1 per basket in average.

11Farmer Field Schools are groups of farmers with a common interest in learning new lessons to im-prove crop production. They are conducted for the purpose of creating an environment suitable for

adult learning. FFS participants get together on a regular basis ( i.e. weekly, bi-weekly) and undertakehands-on learning and practical training either in their own fields or on-farm trials. FFS promotesexploration, discovery and adaptation under local conditions.12Farmer Extension Groups (FEG) are a group of like-minded farmers having a common goal andshared vision to increase production and productivity. FEG encourages a collective learning throughparticipatory on-farm research. Farmers are able to enhance their capacity to experiment and to de-

velop their farming system in a sustainable way.13Labour costs for hand planting range from US$ 29 to 41 (25000 to 35000 kyats) based on the sea-

sonal demand and the skill of the labourers; however broadcasting costs only from US$ 5.8 to 7 (5000-6000 kyats/acre). WHH reported the average yield (i.e. 96 baskets per acre) from the SRI plots were the

highest while broadcasting method yielded 81baskets/acre. In 2010, market price of HYV grain paddyis US$ 4.1/basket (3500 kyat/basket) and that of quality seeds produced by seed growers is US$7.1-8.3(6000-7000 kyats).

10


21/48

In the WHH project areas of Bogale and Mawlamyinegyun, FEG farmers conducted

small trials on some HYVs namely Sin Thwe Latt and Thee Htut Yin in 2010 summer

paddy. Initial results demonstrated that that Sin Thwe Latt variety had a significantly

higher yield for SRI planted compared to the drum seeders and broadcasting (SRI

planted- 4.21 ton/ha, drum seeders- 2.86 ton/ha, broadcasting- 2.19 ton/ha) while

Thee Htut Yin variety showed no significant yield between these three planting

methods. In 2010, the farm gate price of Paw San variety was US$ 6-7.1 (5000-6000

kyat) per basket and that of HYVs was US$ 3.6-4.2 (3000-3500 kyats) per basket,

however, both these prices varied according to market demand.

Farmers that attended Oxfams cross-learning visits said that they would continue

their trial plots. The cross learning created linkages between FEGs and MAS en-

abling farmers to continue receiving MASs extension services even after the proj-

ect was phased out. LWF survey showed that the demonstration plots are ranked

in the top three most valuable contributions of the project by the beneficiary

farmers. Neighbouring farmers confirmed that they will try out SRI planting tech-

niques and inputs due to the demonstration plots. A follow up report could be

developed to source evidence on LWFs multiplier effect in neighbouring house-holds and communities.

(v) Better supply of pure seeds

Welthungerhilfe supported 65 farmers to plant 5,500 acres of certified high yield

variety monsoon paddy seeds. In 2010, 49.5 MT of paddy was harvested yielding

90% of certified seeds; the yield of monsoon paddy increased by 70-85% from an

average yield of 2 MT/ha in 2009 to 3.7 MT/ha (ranging from 3.4 MT/ha for mid-term

varieties to 4.6 MT/ha for high yielding short-term varieties). 4.2 MT of good qual-

ity short-term HYV seeds, covering about 95 acres of paddy fields, were sown in

the summer season 2011 and over 340 MT of paddy will be harvested as summerpaddy. All seed growers also sold almost all of their certified seeds at higher prices.

(vi) Reduction of post-harvest losses

Four partners (Phaung Daw Oo, Relief International, Welthungerhilfe and World Vi-

sion) provided 93 paddy threshers to more than 3,000 farming households in 91

villages in 3 townships.

The capacity of paddy thresher is three times higher than that of manual threshing

with buffaloes14. Field visit revealed that farmers who used paddy thresher reduced

cost by an average of US$ 5.9 to 8.33 (5,000 to 7,000 kyat) per 100 baskets of paddy.

Due to the ample rains, farmer groups used threshers provided by the project for

the summer paddy in March-April 2011. Farmers reported that they had better qual-

ity paddy due to the high threshing capacity and on-time drying.

Regarding drying and storage facility, Welthungerhilfe distributed seed drying kits

(6,000 air-tight bags and 6,000 PVC bags, 2,580 super bags, tarpaulins and 41,100

yards of seed nets and 59 metal silos) to 445 farmers including 75 seed growers.

Provision of shared-use post harvest equipment enabled the threshing of 2,380 MT

of monsoon paddy in Bogale. In the final impact assessment, 85% respondents ben-

14 The capacity of a paddy thresher 2400-3000 baskets of 30 acres per season but that of manualthreshing with buffaloes per season is 800-1000 baskets of 10 acres.

11


22/48

Many LIFT partners ap-plied revolving repay-ment systems to eitherreplicate or transferthe in-kind or in-cash

assets to beneficiaries.

efited from post-harvest support through increased rice yield reduction of post har-

vest loss, and higher incomes. The air tight bags controlled humidity and protected

seeds from rodents and insects. While storing rice in metal silos and seed banks pre-

vented post-harvest losses and enabled farmers to wait for a better market price.

WHH/GRET provided 135 silos and 10,000 air tight bags to 135 seed growers and

365 farmers. FEG farmers from GRET project villages experimented with different

storage facilities that included locally made small bamboo bins, vinyl bags, and air-

tight hermetic bags. Paddy seeds harvested in 2009 rainy season (Thee Dat Yin va-

riety) were collected and sun dried uniformly to reach 13% moisture. The paddy

seeds were stored in the 3 different facilities. It was found that the airtight bags kept

the paddy seeds with in constant moisture while the other two storage facilities in-

creased moisture content and subsequently reduced the quality of the seeds. Some

of the seed growers and FEG farmers sold their paddy seeds for a higher price an

additional US$ 2.9 to 4.16 (2,500 to 3,500 kyat) per basket.

Overall, 5-10% of post harvest loss was prevented due to the threshing machine and

equipments such as tarpaulin and seed nets that was used in sun drying. It is esti-mated that farmers, who cultivated summer paddy, harvested an additional 4 to 8

baskets more than usual15ensuring farmers had a surplus of 6,000 to 12,000 baskets

(US$ 25,000 50,000) of summer paddy due to using threshers.

(vii) Sustainability of farming inputs

Many LIFT partners applied revolving repayment systems to either replicate or trans-

fer the in-kind or in-cash assets to beneficiaries. Seed and buffalo banks had in-kind

repayments while cash was repaid to purchase fertilizers and seeds. Farmer groups

established revolving funds to repair and maintain threshers and other machines.

(a) seed banks

Three partners (World Vision, Action Aid, Welthungerhilfe) provided seeds and start-

ed up seed banks with small-scale farmers to produce pure seeds. Seventy eight

seed banks were established under LIFTs Delta 1 project. Action Aids local partners

(Searcher Myanmar, Thingaha and MBFC) assisted 638 farming households to es-

tablish 10 paddy seed banks and store 3,791 baskets resulting in a good repayment

with interest.

Searcher Myanmar paid cash to the committee to purchase the paddy and then

committee distributed 3-5 baskets of paddy to individual farmer. After the harvest,farmers repaid the amount in the form of paddy with 25% excess and additional 371

baskets were collected upon 1190 baskets received by 150 farmers. Thingaha also

paid cash US$ 142.85 each to 50 farmers and the farmers repaid 30 baskets of paddy

after the harvest.

In Labutta, Mercy Corps established 6 Rice Seed Banks (RSB) with 563 smallholder

farmers. Project disbursed US$ 71.42 to individual RSB members for purchasing

seed. Project reported that repayment rate was almost 100% after the harvest of

monsoon paddy. In WHH/Cesvi project villages in Dedaye, farmers also repaid the

amount of seeds borrowed together with an interest rate equivalent to the 25% at the

end of the monsoon paddy season. This interest rate was decided by the members15Based on the average increase yield of summer paddy (80 baskets per acre).

12


23/48

of the seed bank and agreed with the VDCs. Seed bank committees monitored both the quantity and quality

of the seed borrowed and repaid.

(b) buffalo banks

Three of LIFTs partners (LWF, Metta, Mercy Corps) established buffalo banks in Bogale, Mawlamyin-egyun and Labutta Township. LWF started a buffalo bank with 45 animals that was doubled by 45

buffaloes purchased by the repayments from the first batch beneficiaries on selling their increased

monsoon paddy harvest.

Metta distributed 556 buffaloes in 13

villages of Mawlamyinegyun for land

preparation of 2010 monsoon paddy.

FMO field visit and annual report re-

vealed that the community prefers to

use buffaloes over machines due to its

low maintenance cost, ability to work

in deep water and very muddy areasand ability to destroy weeds. The sys-

tem of revolving buffaloes is in place

in the respective villages with different

repayment schedules ranging from one

to three years. Results will be provided

with the final report due end of 2011.

Mercy Corps was the biggest provider

of buffaloes and supporter of buffalo

banks, distributing 423 buffaloes to 205 buffalo banks with 1,110 members. Mercy Corps also organized

several buffalo markets in Labutta in order to establish a transparent market platform for buffalo producersand buyers.

(c) revolving funds

Power tillers and paddy threshers were provided as a revolving asset to sustain activities after the proj-

ects were phased out. LIFTs partners provided management and technical training to maintain the equip-

ment and sustain the revolving funds. For instance, threshing activities carried out by Welthungerhilfes FEG

groups led to an income of over US$2,800 for 25 thresher operators, averaging US$110 per operator for a

season. Today, over 75% of the thresher groups (19 out of 25) are fully autonomous groups with manage-

ment committees following agreed rules and regulations.

Help Age provided average loans of US$115 over six months at a monthly interest rate of 2% compared to

an average interest rate of 9% provided by commercial lenders, enabling farmers to save US$50 on average.

Many farmers were able to take two loans per year.

Partners reported increased yields due to inputs (seeds, inorganic and organic fertilizers) and land prepa-

ration equipment such as buffaloes and power tillers. For example, Oxfam reported that, testing the dif-

ferent methods of sowing, use of mixed natural and chemical fertilizers and making natural fertilizers

from existing resources through the FEG, resulted in yields of approximately 100 baskets (about 2,090 kg)

per acre, double than the yields attained in the previous year with traditional farming practices. In Delta

1 projects, partners mostly distributed inorganic fertilizers; urea and T-super phosphate; while a few of

LIFTs partners such as Action Aid, WHH and World Vision distributed both of inorganic and organic fertil-izers for monsoon and summer paddy. However, no comparison of costs and benefits of inorganic and

organic fertilizers were provided to LIFT by the partners.

13


24/48

Mushroom cultivationis quite appropriate forcasual labour and land-less households as it

provides better returns

without requiring largeamounts of labour ortechnical expertise.

(viii) Support on home gardening and winter cropping

WHH and its implementing partners supported land poor households with home

gardening kits and pulses for winter cropping in their project areas to assist these

poor households to create another source of income and to diversify the diet of

household members. In total, 675 beneficiaries received monsoon vegetable kits(i.e. vegetable seeds, gardening tools and organic fertilizers, while 287 new benefi-

ciaries received winter vegetable kits including a large number of winter vegetable

varieties, gardening tools, organic fertilizer and mushroom cultivation kits in the

2010-2011. Moreover, in the villages, where environmental and soil conditions al-

lowed two crops per year, Cesvi provided 51 beneficiaries with pulses (i.e. green and

black gram seeds) for the winter season and WHH distributed 7,525 cassava cuttings

to 565 mainly landless households in Bogale.

In addition, WHH and GRET trained 78 vegetable promoters to make compost and

EM, grafting and budding techniques, vegetable seed production. Vegetable pro-

moters were also provided with small horticulture tools. The promoters disseminat-

ed innovative and improved cultivation practices at village level and enabled theproject to have a multiplier effect by disseminating new practices.

WHH/GRET reported that more than half of the vegetable production in both monsoon and

winter seasons were consumed by the households, leading to an improvement of their diet.

The household average incomes received from vegetables cultivated in monsoon and win-

ter were US$ 9.5 and $11.90 respectively by the selling of the extra production.

Fruit trees planted will enable households to consume fruits and earn income after one

year. Project monitoring found that after two seasons of regular support from the proj-

ect staff, participating households are interested in home gardening. Three quarters of

home gardeners surveyed were able to increase their income by selling their produce andby reducting money spent on food. This has enabled vulnerable households develop re-

lationships with other villagers and 98% of beneficiary households said that they would

continue home gardening even without the project assistance.

Mushroom production over the winter season 2010-2011 gained an average house-

hold income of about US$ 19.48 (ranging from $3.80 to 47.38) in some project vil-

lages. Mushroom cultivation is quite appropriate for casual labour and landless

households as it provides better returns without requiring large amounts of labour

or technical expertise. However, a major constraint for this activity was that myce-

lium / spores are not available in local.

In the project villages, 15 Integrated Farming System sites were established with

provision of 2 piglets, 150 fish fingerlings (Tilapia), and vegetable seeds. 415 partici-

pants from 66 villages participated in regular monitoring visits and visits to share

knowledge and experiential learning. In general, the integrated farming compo-

nent of the project was well appreciated by farmers and drew a lot of attention

from surrounding households due to an increase in incomes from a combination of

activities. During exposure visits, visitors were very interested in integrating small

livestock and low cost aquaculture. Most of farmers were convinced about the good

demand for fingerlings and identified long term potential of this activity. Farmers

faced difficulties due to the particularly heavy rains as most of the vegetable cultiva-

tion around the ponds was washed away. However, due to integrated farming sys-

tem sites incomes ranged from US$ 26 to 70. It is expected that in the longer term

aquaculture could provide a steady source of income.

14


25/48

Sr.No Partner Region/Zone Township No. of villages

1 ADRA Magway/Dry Zone Pakokku, Myaing, Seikphyu (3) 50

2 Cesvi Shan Naung Cho, Kyauk Me (2) 100

3 DPDO Magway/Dry Zone Magway, Natmauk, Myo Thit (3) 22

4 GRET Chin Tedim, Tonzang, Falam, Hakha, 213

Htantalan (5)

5 HelpAge Mandalay, Sagaing/ Dry Zone Mahlaing, Ayartaw (2) 30

6 Metta Shan, Kachin Taunggyi, Kyauktaloongyi, Pinlaung, 200

Hsehseng, Putao, Machanbaw,

SumpraBum, Njang Yang (8)

7 Mercy Corps Mandalay/Dry Zone, Pyawbwe, Tonzang, Mrauk U, (3) 100

Chin, Rakhine

8 Oxfam Mandalay, Magway/ Dry Zone Tharzi, Minbu (2) 47

9 SwissAid Shan, Kachin Taunggyi, Hsehseng, Hopong, 84

Kentuang, Bahmaw, Myitkyinar,

Mogaung, Shweku, Waimaw,

Mansi, Momauk. Naungmon (12)

Total 40 846

LIFT activities outside the Delta (country-wide programme)

Nine implementing partners (ADRA, Cesvi, DPDO, GRET, HelpAge, Metta, Mercy Corps, Oxfam and SwissAid)

are implementing agricultural activities throughout three-year livelihood projects. A total of 87,395 house-

holds of 846 villages are being targeted in 40 townships across the Dry Zone, Kachin, Chin, Shan, and Rakh-

ine States.

LIFT partners primary beneficiaries are marginal/land poor farming households and women-headed farming

households; however older people and people with disabilities are also assisted through LIFTs partner Help

Age. LIFTs FMO monitoring visits concluded that partners used good social mobilization techniques to select

village beneficiaries and to develop transparent governance structures at the community level.

Action Aid, the implementing partner of ADRA in Dry Zone, recruits and trains village youth (called fellows)

and places them in project villages. The fellows work with the community to enhance understanding of the

projects goals and expected outcomes. Action Aid has completed the beneficiary selection process in all

townships except in Seikphyu Township. Seventy percent of target beneficiaries were identified accordingto the criteria agreed by the community. Thirty-five self-help groups (SHGs) will be provided cash grants to

purchase livelihood inputs. Ten out of 25 agricultural and livestock trainings are completed and trainees

have been selected.

In the DPDO project areas in Dry Zone, farmers cultivated groundnut and sesame and the project distributed cash

grants to 186 small holder farmers in June 2011 to purchase agricultural input (i.e. fertilizers) and to pay for weed-

ing and harvesting. Oxfam project is still in the inception phase and no report was received as of end June 2011.

Metta is implementing FFS for upland rice in 201 villages in the southern Shan and Kachin States. The Metta

project held village leader workshops to orientate the community on FFS. From May 2011 onwards, FFSs

have been functioning in 20 villages with 488 farmers (1,464 males and 1,447 females). Study plots weredeveloped in FFS site for regular training sessions and hands-on training was also conducted.

15


26/48

GRET formed 28 farmer groups with 1,607 members (918 men and 689 women) in the selected villages. 201

farmers received agricultural training (45% of those trained are women). In addition, 26 collective action

plans were developed for livelihoods activities, including terrace extension, irrigation network and coffee

plantation that will begin in the last quarter of 2011.

In partnership with 6 local implementing partners, SwissAid has been implementing livelihood activities in

Kachin, eastern Shan and southern Shan States, covering 84 villages in 12 townships (3 in southern Shan,

1 in eastern Shan and 8 in Kachin). The project distributed buffaloes and cattle to establish eight buffalo

banks and one cattle bank. Additionally, 106 households from 10 villages received cash grants to purchase

seeds and fertilizers. In Kachin, 87 farmers participated in season-long FFS on upland paddy techniques and

organic farming.

Some of LIFTs partners (i.e. Cesvi, Help Age and Mercy Corps) were not able to complete their work plans for

the first six months of 2011 due to delays in signing agreements with the government. Cesvi and Help Age

formed village development committees and livelihood groups, but did not provide inputs. Mercy Corps

and its local partners began field-level data collection for their food security/vulnerability assessment in 16

villages in three project townships. Findings and results will be used to design community economic resil-

ience plans. By Sept/Oct 2011, 50 farmer facilitators will be trained in time to launch the FFSs in 80 projectvillages.

2.2 Output 2: Effective market and employment support mechanisms provided and used by

target individuals (on farm, off farm and non-farm)

LIFT projects address issues of market development and rural employment support in three ways:

1. Support to market development for rural family businesses through knowledge and skill building, capi-

tal support, and expansion of financial services through initiating group managed funds.

2. Creation of rural employment opportunities through livelihood inputs such as livestock and fishery in-

puts and provision for home gardening.

3. Support to capital requirements with affordable loans (microfinance).

Partner reports and the Fund Managers monitoring visits observed that these activities tend to primarily ca-

sual labourers and small-scale farmers16. All projects in the Delta, except those implemented by Pact, UNDP,

and Metta, were completed by the end of June 2011. Results from outside the Delta will be included in the

next report.

According to UNDP and observations made through several monitoring visits and information collected us-

ing various monitoring tools, revealed that the intended results were achieved in LIFT project villages. The

households receiving assistance from UNDP retained their sustainable food security for at least 8 months.And more than 75% of the 6,203 households who received UNDP assistance have increased their income by

a minimum of 25 %, i.e. from US$1 per day (base line) to $1.25 ~ $2 per day.

ADRAs external evaluation, interviews and group discussion with the project beneficiaries shared that fami-

lies were able to save and overall indebtedness levels were decreasing. Small shops were also seeing an

increase in local demand for their products.

Impact assessment of Relief International highlighted major benefits the project provided in the Delta. 100%

bought rice on credit in Bogale, 56.1% in Pyapon and 94.3% in Dedaye, before the LIFT project provided

16Locally, the term casual labourer covers households that: are not owners of agricultural land, are doing small scale fishing, may

be doing small livestock raising and may be tenant farmers on less than 2 acres. Therefore, the activities in output 2 targeted mostlycasual labourers and small-scale tenant farmers. Out of 22 projects, 16 projects address issues of fishery, livestock, and small busi-

ness. In 2010, 47,295 households received assistance through those activities.

16


27/48

inputs. After the LIFT project, Bogales reliance of credit to buy rice had reduced

to 6.8%, 27.3% for Pyapon and 83.0% for Dedaye. Across all villages RI saw a large

decrease, from 88% to 27% of households purchasing food with credit. Similarly,

the percentage of households that borrowed rice consumption had reduced from

99% to 6.1% in Bogale, 54.5% to 15.2% in Pyapon and 90.6 % to 63.5 % in Dedaye.

Across all villages the percentage of households that borrow rice for consumption

decreased dramatically from 86.5% to 19.9%.

According to HelpAges project end assessment, it was found out that 85% of proj-

ect beneficiaries responded that their livelihoods have been restored compared to

pre-Nargis levels.

Other result level information can be found out in the following sections.

2.2.1 LIFT activities in the Delta

9 of the 22 projects provided start-up capital and training to casual labourers and

small-scale farmers.

a. Provision of financial capital

There are two major approaches used by partners:

Cash revolving fund established with savings, andCash revolving fund established with repayments against project inputs.

LIFTs partners with institutional capacity in microfinance such as Save the Children,

UNDP, Pact, World Vision and Welthungerhilfe began cash revolving funds with sav-

ings. HelpAge, ADRA, and Oxfam implemented revolving funds without a member

savings component.

In general, the Fund Manager has found that partners that encouraged members to

contribute to the group were more sustainable. For example, during the FMOs field

visits to the project villages of UNDP, World Vision, and Pact, internal management

of saving groups were found consistent with measures that lead sustainability of

saving groups (cash revolving fund) such as transparency in financial transactions,

group participation in decision making, punctuality in repayment, sufficient book-

keeping training, close monitoring and facilitation by project staff, and linkage with

skill/technical training.

In addition, the projects independent evaluation supported the FMOs finding. Forexample, an independent evaluation World Vision found out that the proliferation

of saving groups shows the advantage of the saving group members easily access-

ing to their collective saved money when in need, to plan for the future of buying

or trading to increase the income. In Save the Childrens independent evaluation

report, the projects saving oriented cash revolving fund strategy allowed the com-

munity to invest in on farm and off farm income generation activities and health

and education. On the other cash base revolving fund without saving, Help Ages

external evaluator suggested that loan structure and repayment schedules should

be redesigned in order to improve the villagers incomes.

According to final project reports, Save the Children formed 63 community liveli-hood networks (CLN) comprising of 7,786 members (62% women). On the proj-

ects completion, the total revolving funds reached US$91,000 (US$29,000 from

Fund Manager has

found that partnersthat encouraged mem-bers to contribute to the

group were more sus-

tainable.

17


28/48

member savings and US$62,000 from project contributions). DAWN microfinance,

provided intensive technical support to the CLNs. 3,151 members (67% female)

from 60 villages received loans for income generating activities and social needs.

59% of the CLN members reduced their level of indebtedness during the project

period while 12% increased indebtedness to establish new businesses or extend

their ongoing business.

World Vision formed 175 self-help groups (SHG) comprising of 3,247 members

(99% women) during the project period. Individual SHGs saved between US$6

and US$340 and the loans provided were between US$5 and US$280. All borrow-

ers repaid their loans. Pact provided bookkeeping training and fund management

training to village saving groups. During the project, 43 saving groups comprising

of 2,926 members (71% women) were formed. The total savings reached $83,000

and 4,922 individual loans were issued (total value US$183,000).

Oxfam introduced a different model of village revolving fund through repayments

from project beneficiaries (small-scale farmers, fishermen and casual labourers)

who had received cash grant support. The members of the revolving funds pro-

vided cash grants (from the interest earned) to the most vulnerable households

within the village. This practice appears to be unique. The system was set up in 15

villages in Pyapon and 822 project beneficiaries participated. The groups reached

total revolving funds of US$78,000 including US$5,300 of interest earned. Accord-

ing to FMOs field experience, the projects encouraged the community based

groups to make their own decision through wider participation among group

members.

These interesting models will be captured through the Delta 1 evaluation and

2011 Annual Report.

b. Business development training

As of June 2011, 9,682 people in the Delta received business development train-

ing from LIFTs implementing partners. These trainings introduced new products

and businesses, management skills and bookkeeping. The participants were also

linked with revolving fund groups.

ADRA provided business development training to 275 people (95% women out of

which 11% are household heads). Nearly a third of the people trained are using

new techniques in their livelihood activities. HelpAge facilitated the formation of

livelihood support groups (LSG) and trained 788 LSG households (486 livestock

owners and 302 small businesses). Over 300 of them set up small businesses such

as grocery shops, bamboo mat trading and selling flowers and snacks.

MBCA introduced solar drying system and provided fish cutting, salting, packag-

ing, and solar machine maintenance training to 250 people. The project evalua-

tion confirms that more people are using solar dryers that produce better qual-

ity products resulting in an increase in demand for their products. UN-HABITAT

18


29/48


30/48

Overall objective of allof livelihood inputs isto create rural employ-ment beyond the project

period, and the benefi-ciary households are ex-

pected to receive regularincome by these inputs.

c. Creation of rural employment opportunities through livelihood inputs

The provisions of livestock inputs (e.g., pigs, ducks, goats, and chickens), fishing

gear (e.g., boats, nets) and support for home gardening were the most common

livelihood inputs provided. In most of the cases, the provision of inputs through

cash grants (as opposed to in-kind) was found to be more effective and sustainablefor the following reasons:

The beneficiaries have more opportunity to participate in the procurement pro-cess, leading to the purchase of items according to local demand

Direct involvement of beneficiaries in procurement avoided many animal healthproblems

In-cash support promoted local marketsExamples of inputs provided:

Livestock was provided to 10,846 households in the Delta11,395 households benefited from the provision of fishing gear such as boatsand nets

13,392 households received home gardening assistance (the most successfulactivity appears to be growing betel leaf plants)17

The overall objective of providing livelihood inputs is to create rural employment

and ensure that the beneficiary households receive regular income.

Save the Children provided cash grants to 5,257 households according to their

business proposal. According to post monitoring results, 92% of them were earn-

ing extra income through investment of cash grants received in buying produc-

tive assets such as fishing nets, small boats, crab traps and livestock (e.g., pigs,

chicken, ducklings and fish fingerlings) and in small retail shops.

ADRAs reported that conditional cash grants were appropriate activities for raisingincome at a time of recovery when beneficiaries could access inputs in the market.

For example, livestock is both an income source and a component of local social

safety nets. The grants required applying investments in a specific sector while cov-

ering all aspects of livelihoods.

Another model provided livestock inputs. However, LEAD, Triangle GH, and FAO

experienced significant cases of animal death during transportation or during one

week after distribution. Replacement animals were negotiated with the suppliers,

however, those beyond these conditions were losses for both the projects and

beneficiaries.

In UNDPs project area, livelihood grants of US$100 to US$150 were provided to

1,573 targeted poor, landless and most vulnerable members of livestock groups to

enhance income and improve nutrition. The majority of beneficiaries raised either

ducks or pigs with the livelihood grants and almost all of them adopted improved

livestock raising practices. Income earning of livestock households who raised

duck increased more than US$1 per day by selling eggs. Most of the beneficiaries

started next livestock breeding cycle by buying more ducks and piglets.

In World Visions project, 212 out of 2,910 targeted beneficiary households were

provided with livestock (pigs and ducks). Trainings on livestock raising, husbandry

17 Welthungerhilfe survey showed that 70% of families in Bogale, Mawlamyinegyun, and Dedayetownships had women in charge of backyard gardening and that they were earning extra income

from the assistance they had received.

20


31/48

and veterinary science were provided to all livestock raisers. The project monitor-

ing results showed that almost all the pigs conceived or will give birth in two

months. It was indicated that the beneficiaries incomes increased through this

support.

d. Microfinance

Out of 22 Delta-1 projects, only UNDP was funded for microfinance activ-

ity. In partnership with Pact, the projects microfinance service reached to 1,218

farmer households from 65 villages. In average, each farmer (or client) received

Kyat 250,000 as an agricultural loan for this years monsoon paddy season. The loan

disbursement was mostly concentrated to subsistence farmers. Clients were able to

invest in paddy cultivation covering total acres of 4,872 in three townships: Bogale,

Mawlamyinegyun, and Labutta.

According to the projects monitoring results, clients are regularly repaying the inter-

est instalment (2% monthly flat rate) to the project, and 100% of original loan amount

will be paid back after the harvest (Nov, 2011, beyond the project timeframe). Theproject has planned to accept all the clients as regular clients of UNDP/Pacts long

term microfinance program beyond the project timeframe. This will allow clients to

continue accessing loans for future agricultural seasons.

2.2.2 LIFT activities outside the Delta (country-wide programme)

Projects of ADRA, IDE, EcoDev, MBCA, UNDP, Mercy Corps, and DPDO began small busi-

nesses such as, livestock rearing, jaggery (palm sugar) making from toddy palm trees, and

selling plums, tamarind seeds, and wild plants for medicinal use.

In Shan State, CESVI, SwissAid, Metta, and UNDP projects set up home industries andfood processing units with poor households. In Chin State, GRET, UNDP, and Mercy

Corps started projects in areas of agricultural technology, microfinance and small ru-

ral business. Poor Kachin farmers are also being assisted by LIFT partners to improve

agriculture and livestock.

a. Support to market development for rural businessesADRA have trained 278 beneficiaries (landless labourers, women-headed households,

migrant workers and village youth) on carpentry/masonry, auto mechanic/welding,

sewing, garment making, or food processing and preservation. 60 trainees also re-

ceived training on small enterprise management. DPDO targeted 440 households in

44 villages in the Dry Zone and has established 20 SHGs in 8 villages.

b. Creation of rural employment opportunities through livelihood inputsEcoDev provided onion dehydration training to 150 household members and have

established 30 rural small businesses which produce dehydrated onion. SwissAid

trained 124 landless households on animal husbandry and micro-enterprise manage-

ment and provided them with chickens and piglets. The beneficiaries decided to set

up an animal bank for management of a revolving fund.

c. MicrofinanceA microfinance project was contracted in June 2011. UNDP, in cooperation with Pact,

Save the Children and GRET, plans to cover nearly 2,000 villages in the Dry Zone,Chin State and Shan State. In second half of the year, LIFT-funded microfinance proj-

ects will reach approximately 30,000 households in 2,073 villages of countrywide.

21


32/48

a. Support to market development for rural businesses

ADRA trained 278 beneficiaries (landless labourers, women-headed households,

migrant workers and village youth) on carpentry/masonry, auto mechanic/weld-

ing, sewing, garment making and food processing and preservation. 60 trainees

also received small enterprise management training. DPDO targeted 440 house-

holds in 44 villages in the Dry Zone and established 20 SHGs in 8 villages.

b. Creation of rural employment opportunities through livelihood inputs

EcoDev provided onion dehydration training to 150 household members and es-

tablished 30 rural small businesses to produce dehydrated onions. SwissAid trained

124 landless households on animal husbandry and micro-enterprise management

and provided them with chickens and piglets. The beneficiaries set up an animal

bank for management of a revolving fund.

c. Microfinance

UNDP, in cooperation with Pact, Save the Children and GRETs microfinance project

plans to cover nearly 2,000 villages in the Dry Zone, Chin State and Shan State. LIFT-funded microfinance projects will reach approximately 30,000 households in 2,073

villages of countrywide by end 2011.

2.3 Output 3: Effective social protection measures that increase the incomesand enhance the livelihood opportunities of chronically poor households

Many of LIFTs partners employed social protection measures in their projects to

increase income and enhance livelihood opportunities for poor and vulnerable

households. Promotive strategies are transformative social protection measures18

to enhance incomes and capacities of vulnerable people. LIFT provided unskilledmanual workers with short-term employment opportunities such as construction

of roads and foot paths, agricultural related infrastructure and disaster risk reduc-

tion related activities.

Some of LIFTs partners provided social assistance through conditional cash transfers

(CCTs) to improve health and nutritional status of children. Cash transfers also addressed

some of the underlying causes of inequalities in health such as malnutrition. LIFT estab-

lished rice/grain banks to secure food before the harvesting period. LIFT provided liveli-

hood support and mobility aids to older people and persons with disabilities. However,

some problems arose in certain villages when communities were not targeted appropri-

ately. Targeting training should also need to focus on social protection objectives.

Dominant types of social protection under LIFT:

Provision measures: support for persons with disabilities and older peoplePreventive measures: establishment of rice banks establishmentPromotional measures: conditional cash grants to the poor and the vulnerableand public works programmesTransformative measures: inclusive programming training

18Transformative social protection has four main elements: protective measures provide relief from depri-

vation, preventive measures seek to avert deprivation, promotive measures aim to enhance incomes andcapabilities, and transformative measures seek to address vulnerabilities arising from social inequity andexclusion. Devereux and Sabates Wheeler, Institute of Development Studies, 2006.

22


33/48

23

Inclusive programming for vulnerable groups

In May 2011, LIFT trained partners on

inclusive programming for vulnerable

groups. According to the evaluation,

the training was appreciated, particular-

ly the umbrella vulnerability model (seeright) and the more nuanced approach

to vulnerability focusing on process,

rather than beneficiary targeting. Train-

ing was most effective for the Country

Directors and Field Co-ordinators, and

less effective for the programme officers

due to differing skill levels.

The training introduced the umbrella model of vulnerability, which participants

felt was best suited to the livelihood approach of LIFT. In order to provide a system

to further evaluate and measure vulnerability, the ten factors in the figure at rightwere selected for field testing. This approach can identify certain characteristics

which render a household more, or less vulnerable to pressures and shocks. These

can be expressed as an umbrella, where higher scores indicate a less vulnerable

position- a larger umbrella.


i. Support for persons with disabilities and older peopleHelpAge integrates persons with disabilities and older people in their programmes.

Social assistance was provided to 21 vulnerable older people and 216 persons with

disabilities. Twenty one PwDs were provided with prosthetic devices to ensure ac-cess and participation in village development committees and livelihood support

groups. Disabled people benefited from public investment in reconstructed foot-

paths.

ii. Establishment of rice/ grain banksLIFT partners such as Mingalar Myanmar, ActionAid and Oxfam established rice/

grain banks. Mingalar Myanmars targeted beneficiaries are small-holder farmers

who usually borrow money at high interest rates (around 20%) from money lend-

ers in order to buy rice. The group size varied from 23 to 125 members. Mingalar

Myanmar reported that initially there were 20 rice banks with 512 beneficiaries that

increased to 642 beneficiaries. Moreover, three village rice banks plan to initiate rice

banks in nearby villages.

iii. Conditional cash grantsLIFT partners provided conditional cash grants to poor and vulnerable households

for asset replacement and income activities. During the entire project period, Save

the Children provided US$ 100 each to 4,233 households and US$ 50 to another

1,024 households in conditional cash transfers (CCT). Monitoring results show that

most beneficiaries used the cash to buy livelihoods assets such as fishing nets, small

boats, crab traps, and livestock (pigs, chicken, ducklings, fish fingerlings for aqua-

culture). Beneficiaries also invested in grocery shops or purchased paddy for con-

sumption. Around one third of beneficiaries supplemented the grants with their

savings as the cash grant was insufficient to cover the full costs.


34/48

453 pregnant women and lactating mothers received US$95 as CCT for exclusive

breastfeeding and 48 mothers of children with Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM)

received $126 as CCT for 4 months and plumpy nut for therapeutic treatment of

malnutrition. The end-line survey showed that 95% of mothers were exclusively

breastfeeding infants aged new born to six months compared to 35% in the base-

line. Cure rate for children with SAM was 84%, above the sphere international stan-dard 19. Over a period of nine months malnutrition rates declined from 7.5% to 4.7%

in LIFT-supported villages.

iv. Public Work programs

Cash for work activities were used to enhance income opportunities between cul-

tivation and harvest periods, which assist poor and vulnerable households to buy

food without getting into debt. Receiving US$1.5 to US$2 as daily wages and par-

ticipating for about 20 days in one CfW activity, one household earns enough to buy

rice for one to two months during the season when demand for labour is low. During

field visits to UNHABITAT and Save the Children project sites, it was observed that

households that participated in CfW activities earned an average US$35 to US$45and some of them subsequently purchased tools (fishing tools, farming tools, etc)

to improve their livelihoods.

v. Cash-for-work on construction of communal infrastructure

CfW for community infrastructure included repair/construction of footpaths, roads, jet-

ties and culverts and renovation of ponds. UN-HABITAT implemented the highest num-

ber of CfW activities focussed on communal infrastructure (282 community contracts).

Local communities took primary responsibility for labour management, procurement,

quality control, progress reporting, and timely completion. Community mobilization

processes empowered communities to manage and implement activities.

In the project villages of CDN, for instance, the amount of time spent sourcing water

of poor quality was reduced (traditionally a female or childs task) and renovated

ponds also provided water to (re)establish home gardens helping to improve house-

hold food security. In total, 35 ponds were renovated/ constructed in the Delta.

vi. DRR related cash-for-work programme

DRR related cash for work programs assisted communities to mitigate risks. Dis-

cussions with communities on the choice and design of communal infrastructure

usually took risk reduction into consideration. Re-forestation of natural mangrove

forest, windbreak plantations, river bank plantations, slope stabilisation and estab-lishment of nurseries for community forestry were all included as CfW activities.

vii. Agriculture related cash-for-work

Landless labourers completed CfW activities such as rehabilitation of small dykes,

dams and embankments, grass and bush cutting which had been a refuge for rats,

establishment of demonstration plots and seed banks. CfW activities also ensured

better land preparation and protection against saline water and leaking dykes. TGH

provided 42,000 working days of CfW to protect 24,000 acres of land from intrusion

of salt water. TGH reported that rice yields increased significantly.

1970% to


35/48


36/48

2.4 Output 4: Capacity of local organisations strengthened to support

livelihoods and food security initiatives

This output focuses on building the capacity of organisations and target beneficia-

ries. Results from the first round of projects in the Delta (all one-year projects) have

been limited because partners often completed trainings in less than six months.However, in the second round of projects in the Delta (three-year projects) and in

projects outside the Delta (also three-year projects), partners will have sufficient

time to build the capacity of staff, local groups and target beneficiaries.

Project orientation and induction workshops are commonly organised by LIFT partners to

ensure that staff understand monitoring frameworks and work plans. Participatory rural ap-

praisal, project cycle management, participatory monitoring and evaluation, report writing,

disaster risk reduction and gender analysis training have also been provided to staff.

Community-based organisations were supported in all projects. The number and

type of CBOs supported varied from partner to partner. To enhance the capacity

of CBOs, LIFT partners organized trainings in: management, financial management,

book keeping, social audits, revolving funds, disaster risk reduction, environment,

livestock banking systems, vulnerability analysis, implementation of cash-for-work

activities and M&E. It was reported that as a result of the trainings, the skills, knowl-

edge and confidence of CBO members have improved significantly. The attitude

of CBO members towards cohesion in the villages and development has also re-

portedly changed. The concept of village-based volunteers also proved effective in

terms of replication and sustainability.


LIFT has worked with 31 local NGO partners either directly as implementing part-ners or as partners of LIFT implementing partners. ActionAid, Oxfam, HelpAge, Save

the Children and Mercy Corps, provided technical and managerial training to local

NGOs. ActionAid invested a lot of time and effort to train its 11 local partners. Some

local partners like NAG, CDA or Loka Ahlin were implementing projects with little

supervision while others needed significant guidance.

Field visits showed that the staff from smaller local organizations benefited from the

training sessions and that their skills were better than the staff from organizations

that did not receive trainings. Networking, coordination and collaboration with oth-

er stakeholders also improved.

To improve the capacity of CBOs, partners conducted a range of trainings on CBO

management, social audit, financial management, revolving fund concept, DRR

and environmental issues. ActionAid coordinated regular consortium meetings to

steer its project implementation successfully. ActionAid also facilitated thematic

coordination with partners and stakeholders such as government departments,

INGOs, NGOs, and beneficiaries. The results were impressive and the reports and

field visits showed that the consortium approach assisted in identifying common

issues that required joint coordination efforts with stakeholders.

Monthly coordination meetings were organized by the Recovery Hub Office at

Labutta and Agriculture Technical Working Group at Bogale. All partners sharedtheir project progress with local authorities and government departments during

meetings. These groups were successful in coordinating with its members and with

26


37/48

local authorities by undertaking joint assessments, exchanging technical expertise,

and consulting with the local private sector.

LIFT activities outside the Delta

11 new grants started outside the Delta in the first half of 2011. There are now 16LIFT-funded projects operating outside the Delta and the inception periods for most

projects have been completed. Examples of capacity-building activities include:

Oxfams project staff received training on governance, livelihoods, gender,

womens economic leadership, and logical framework analysis.

SWISSAIDs trained local implementing organizations senior staff on baseline

data collection, GPS, and disability-inclusive programming.

CESVI trained staff on how to develop community action plans

HelpAge held trainings to on gender mainstreaming, financial planning and

management, procurement, inclusive development for persons with disabili-

ties, and economic vulnerability assessments

GRET trained staff from six local partner organizations (CAD, CACC, CARD, CRDP,

KMSS and GRET) on project-cycle management, PLA methods and tools, needs

assessment, proposal writing and report writing.

Agriculture production trainings were carried out by most partners in their respec-

tive project areas. Examples are:

SWISSAID organized sustainable agriculture training (kitchen garden, perennial

plantation and organic fertilizers) and farmer field school training

Metta organized FFS trainings in Pa-O and Kachin communities

Mobile trainings were organized by DPDO on self-help groups and revolving

fund management in 23 villages. Disability awareness trainings were also pro-

vided.

CESVI provided training for 300 nutrition and hygiene promoters.

Food processing training and business and entrepreneurship skill development

training was organized by ECODEV.

2.5 Output 5: Monitoring and evaluation evidence and commissioned

studies used to inform programme and policy development

Lessons learned for programme development

Reports from partners and the FMOs monitoring visits continue to provide a rich

source of learning for LIFT. The following are important lessons learned during the

reporting period.

i. Terminology of systems of rice intensification (SRI)

System of rice intensification (SRI) is a specific, well defined way of growing paddy.

However, SRI uses for more labour for transplanting and needs to regulate the wa-

ter table in paddy fields. Many partners in the Delta have established farmer field

schools that focus on the SRI methodology. FMO monitoring visits revealed that

each partner have different understanding of SRI, and much of what partners call

SRI is not really SRI, even though the methods promoted are useful and well-adapt-

ed to the local environment. Possible future cooperation with International Rice Re-

search Institute (IRRI) will bring more clarity on SRI methods and LIFTs partners will

benefit from IRRI worldwide experience in rice production.

27


38/48

ii. Use of organic and semi-organic fertiliser

A small group of partners promoted organic and semi-organic fertilizers for farmers.

While possibly effective for small plots of high-value products (e.g., garden vegeta-

bles), it is costly and difficult to use enough organic fertilizer for paddy production.

Organic fertilizer only makes sense when there is a market for organic products withhigher prices and the necessary certification for organic products. Semi-organic

fertilizer is simply organic fertiliser with increased nutrient content (by adding in-

dustrial fertiliser). This is not organic production anymore. Organic fertilizer also re-

quires organic production methods to get certified as organic grower. This method

is labour intensive and the price farmers need to break even is higher.

iii. Use of revolving funds

lift semi-annual report 2011.pdf

Documents